Research for the report – entitled ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State’ – was commissioned back in 2007 by The House of Lords’ Constitution Committee to investigate whether or not the UK’s CCTV provision is unconstitutional.
Set against a backdrop of the increased use of CCTV, the creation of the national DNA database and the Government’s plans for national ID cards, the Committee wanted to determine whether increased surveillance and data collection by the State has fundamentally altered the way in which it relates to its citizens.
Combating terrorism and criminality
Britain undoubtedly leads the world in the use of CCTV, with anywhere between 4.5 and six million cameras now in operation. The peers feel we have “constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world, all in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency”.
The peers also suggest we have taken a lead in building a national DNA Database (details of more than 7% of the population are already logged, compared with 0.5% in the America).
However, the cross-party Constitution Committee (which includes Lord Woolf, a former lord chief justice, and two former attorney generals, Lord Morris and Lord Lyell, among its ranks) warns that “pervasive and routine electronic surveillance” and the collection and processing of personal information are now almost taken for granted.
Although many surveillance practices and data collection processes are unknown to most people, the Lords’ report intimates that expansion in their use represents “one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War”.
Used for “malign purposes”
The Committee is adamant that the national DNA database could be used for “malign purposes”. It also challenges whether or not CCTV cuts crime, and questions whether local authorities should be allowed to use surveillance powers at all.
It’s the peers’ firm belief that privacy is “an essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom”. They feel that the growing use of surveillance and data collection “needs to be regulated by executive and legislative restraint at all times”.
Businesses and banks are gathering data on the public from not only CCTV but also CRM systems and the tracking of web-browsing behaviour and of loyalty cards, the report says. It added that the Government also wants access to this data. “Every time we make a telephone call, send an e-mail, browse the Internet or even walk down our local High Street, our actions may be monitored and recorded,” states the Lords report..
Former Conservative chief whip and Constitution Committee chairman Lord Goodlad commented that there can be “no justification for this gradual but incessant creep” towards every detail about an individual being recorded and pored over by the State.
“The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the State and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy,” explained Lord Goodlad. “If members of the public are to trust that information about them is not being improperly used, there should be much more openness about what data is collected, by whom and how it is being used.”
40 measures to protect privacy
Within the report, the Constitution Committee recommends over 40 different measures to protect individual privacy, including the deletion of all profiles from the national DNA database except for those of convicted criminals. It also calls for the mandatory encryption of personal data held by public and private sector organisations legally obliged to do so.
Interestingly, the report retains a notable silence on recent proposals from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for a so-called ‘Super database’ designed to track all of our e-mails, telephone calls, text messages and Internet usage. There’s also no mention of Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s desire to lower barriers on the widespread sharing of personal data across the public sector.
The peers are fiercely sceptical on the matter of whether local authorities should continue to exercise their surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. They say that examples of local councils using covert surveillance operations to stop fly tipping, reducing dog fouling, and investigate fraudulent school place applications lead them to question how they acquired such powers.
According to the Constitution Committee, it’s right that ministers should examine whether local authorities – rather than the police service – are the appropriate bodies to mount surveillance operations. If they are, then their use should be confined to crime investigations that carry a minimum two-year prison sentence.
The peers also suggest that any individuals targeted by such operations should be informed about when the process has been completed (as long as no investigation is prejudiced as a result).
Thomas starts the ball rolling
Back in 2004, information commissioner Richard Thomas warned that Britain was in danger of “sleepwalking into a surveillance society”.
In a statement he made two years later, Thomas opined: “Today, I fear that we are in fact waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us.”
What forms of surveillance and data collection might be considered constitutionally proper or improper? Is there a line that should not be crossed? How could it be identified? These are but some of the questions the Constitution Committee has sought to answer.
Committee members still believe that the growing trend toward surveillance has not been adequately analysed by those who have the citizens’ interests at heart, or with an eye on the effect it has on politics.
Sweeping changes are most certainly altering the relationship between individuals and the State. The $64,000 question is whether or not the necessary protection is in place.
What needs to be done
The Constitution Committee report states that any future surveillance or data processing scheme suggested by Whitehall should be closely scrutinised by a dedicated parliamentary body and the information commissioner before it goes ahead. This should be paired with legally binding guidelines on the operation of all CCTV systems.
The report also comments that the Government must act swiftly to comply with last December’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that innocent people’s DNA should be removed from the national DNA database, a decision that could see about 850,000 people’s details erased. The information commissioner should also be able to carry out unannounced spot checks on private sector organisations to check they are in full compliance with the Data Protection Act.
Employed where necessary and proportionate
“The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy, these measures must only be used where it is necessary and proportionate”, explained a spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice. “This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public, as well as ensuring Government has the ability to provide effective public services. It also means that there are effective safeguards in place alongside a solid legal framework that protects civil liberties.”
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, added his views: “This report reflects a sea change in public opinion. The language is robust and unequivocal about the need to address surveillance as a matter of urgency. Hopefully, this will pave the way for overturning the parts of the Coroners and Justice Bill that will allow Government ministers the ability to demand data sharing between organisations.”
